Home Outside Asylum

Take a walk, smell the roses. Any topic is fine, save people bashing.

OK, I'll take issue with Huxley's comment

Julian Huxley defined morals from a purely biological point of view when he said that "Whatever contributes to the progress and development of the individual, or of the species, is good. Whatever harms their progress or development, is bad." Simple. Elegant. Isn´t it?

Well no, actually it's neither elegant nor as simple as Huxley tries to pretend. For me, the problem is how you define "progress and development".

Species really don't care about either, they "care" only about survival. There is no morality involved here, just fitness. Even individual members of a species, when viewed from a biological perspective function in terms of fitness, though for individuals this can be broadened to "inclusive fitness" that takes into account the species-survival qualities of traits like altruism. When it comes to sentient individuals the definitions of "progress and development" go all over the map, including directions that other individuals may find pointless or even anathema.

I really think it's a mistake to try and define morality (which is a purely mental construct) in terms of biology (which requires no mentation to operate).

Also...

I maintain that the humanist view of morality is every bit as "objective" when it exists on its own as when it is dressed up in religious garb. At its root all morality is aimed at reducing the harm done to others (perhaps even those that don't share the same species or even phylum). As a result, the nature of actions considered to be moral has remained remarkably constant across cultures and time, regardless of the religion in use.

Despite what its adherents claim, religion has more than a bit of a problem with moral relativism. This is because of its underlying operation as a social control mechanism. This has caused religions to define as moral actions that are manifestly immoral when viewed from a humanist point of view. Past and present examples of this include the ethnic destruction of aboriginal peoples though the use of residential schools, the obstruction of the education of women, and the support and justification of slavery. All these behaviours have been justified on religious grounds in some times and places, and subsequently repudiated by the religions that supported them. This shows that religion (or at least the church) is by no means the absolute moral compass its adherents pray that it is.

"An' ye do no harm, do what thou wilt," and "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" are both sound moral admonitions that need no supernatural support.




This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
  Sonic Craft  


Follow Ups Full Thread
Follow Ups
  • OK, I'll take issue with Huxley's comment - GliderGuider 06/5/0711:26:41 06/5/07 (0)

FAQ

Post a Message!

Forgot Password?
Moniker (Username):
Password (Optional):
  Remember my Moniker & Password  (What's this?)    Eat Me
E-Mail (Optional):
Subject:
Message:   (Posts are subject to Content Rules)
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:
Upload Image:
E-mail Replies:  Automagically notify you when someone responds.